Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tallhappy
Was done. Genes, rRNA and mitochondrial DNA have been used prior to full genome sequences because they were available.

I posted the table of contents for the last issue of MBE. Oh, I'm sorry, I should have spelled it out; Molecular Biology and Evolution. It's a journal. A journal is a place scientists publish their work. This month's TOC is a fair reflection where the field was 6 months ago. Only a tiny minority of papers was concerned with transposons.

h. At least you've moved in to the 1980's. Most here are still in the 19th century.

I posted an analysis of a 2006 table of contents. Ignoring unfortunate facts doesn't make them go away; it makes you mendacious by omission. When someone posts a rebuttal of some point you make, as Stultis did, as I have, you just ignore it. But hey, that's you.

And, focusing on typos or grammar issues is a sign of not having anything else to harp on.

I'm disappointed you don't appreciate my well-intentioned attempts to help you.

The way you do it it is also a personal attack, but hey that's you.

You have no basis for complaint. I asked you to stop posting personal insults. You refused. Now you're trying to represent my constructive suggestions on how you might improve your own posts as attacks.

Now try and actually focus on something concrete. What of the following is nonsense: Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution because it turns out that this type of DNA discovered by McClintock doing structural chromosomal work in tandem with genetics is a major portion of the genome.

It's false. Apparently your reading is as weak as your writing. Published genomic comparison still focuses mainly on genes and other coding elements.

276 posted on 04/26/2006 7:27:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]


To: Right Wing Professor
It's false.

That's your final answer? That it is false that "Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution" and that "this type of DNA [repeat elements] is a major portion of the genome" is also false or nonsense?

277 posted on 04/26/2006 10:10:03 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]

To: Right Wing Professor
Again:

"this type of DNA [repeat elements] is a major portion of the genome" is also false or nonsense?

I do not think you meant to say that this is nonsense and am giving you every opportunity to make clear what is nonsense so as to make no mistakes as to what you are saying.

284 posted on 04/26/2006 11:24:13 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson